Surely, those now angrily denouncing a public lobby for changes to the system after the Stanley jury verdict can recognize that some were lobbying for changes even before the trial started.

Let’s accept that Friday’s verdict simply cannot be dismissed over frivolous perceptions — like the jury must have been biased.

For starters, we have no way of knowing what went on during those deliberations — let alone what was in jurors’ hearts and minds. We would be remiss in not acknowledging that this outcome might simply be the product of Stanley’s defence offering the jury a path to arrive at its not guilty verdict.

While Crown prosecutor Bill Burge accused Stanley of lying, it is abundantly clear that Crown witnesses in the car changed their stories about what they were doing prior to arriving in the Stanley farmyard and even what they saw when they were there. Witness credibility matters.

And while we will never know why the jury didn’t opt for a manslaughter verdict, we need to acknowledge the defence’s explanation that an older model hand gun misfired, and the Crown’s failure to convince the jury of the unlikeness of such an event.

But the problem right now in Saskatchewan — throughout Canada, really — is not a debate over evidence. It’s the resulting division — two sides lining up largely on liberal/conservative lines as if this were a sporting event.

Why are the Crown and defence still allowed “peremptory challenges,” which were done away with in Britain 30 years ago? Is there anywhere else in today’s society where you can simply take a look at someone and — solely based on skin-colour or gender — determine that he or she is not fit for the job?

Would we even be having this conversation today if there had been a single visibly identifiable Indigenous person on that jury?

Or do we believe racist Internet nonsense that an Indigenous jury member would have produced an unfair verdict?

We need change to restore faith in the system for all peoples. Some will resist such change.